Year: 2009

National Reciprocity You Can Believe In

Sensibly Progressive points out that the anti-gunners are acting like this is a done deal already, but it’s not.  The amendment has merely been proposed.  It hasn’t been voted on yet.  But since it’s proposed, we have the language, and I like it:

SEC. 1083. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) Findings.–Congress finds the following:

(1) The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

(2) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

(3) Congress has previously enacted legislation for national authorization of the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

(4) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms to individuals, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without need for a permit.

(5) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.

(6) Congress finds that the prevention of lawful carrying by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

(7) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(8) Congress therefore should provide for the interstate carrying of firearms by such individuals in all States that do not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by their own residents.

(b) In General.–Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:“§926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof–

(1) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that–

(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes;

(2) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that–

(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

(b) A person carrying a concealed firearm under this section shall–

(1) in a State that does not prohibit the carrying of a concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes, be entitled to carry such firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern the specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a resident of the State; or

(2) in a State that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, be entitled to carry such a firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a person issued a permit by the State in which the firearm is carried.

(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license of or permit issued to a resident of the State.

(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to–

(1) effect the permitting process for an individual in the State of residence of the individual; or

(2) preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.

(c) Clerical Amendment.–The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.

(d) Severability.–Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(e) Effective Date.–The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

So Congress is explicitly claiming its powers granted by the 14th Amendment to override state law in the matter of carrying firearms.  Originally, I was against bills like this because they relied on abusing Congress’ power under the commerce clause, but this one I will get behind.  I think this is an appropriate exercise of Congress’ 14th Amendment powers.  Contact your senators, and make sure they understand you expect them to support the Senate Amendment No. 1618 to the Defense Appropriations Bill S.1390.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Language Available for HR822
  2. More on Non-Resident Reciprocity
  3. HR822 Replaced

Obama Gun Protester Cleared on Disorderly Charge

Remember back during the campaign of 2008,  a guy got picked up for disorderly conduct and causing a disturbance for openly carrying a gun outside an Obama rally?  He was acquitted of all charges.  Might not have been the smartest thing in the world to do, but it’s not illegal.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Open Carry Loss in Court
  2. Bloomberg Gaining Quite a Collection
  3. 2A Rally in Harrisburg

Man Who Sold McNair’s Girlfriend Gun Arrested

Apparently he was a prohibited person:

Adrian J. Gilliam Jr., 33, of LaVergne, Tenn., was arrested Friday morning by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and faces a “felon in possession” charge, a source familiar with the case told ESPN.com’s Paul Kuharsky.

A criminal complaint unsealed Friday in Nashville says that Gilliam — who was convicted of second-degree murder and attempted armed robbery in 1993 in Florida — admitted he sold the gun to the woman who later shot McNair.

So she basically bought it from a criminal.  Where Gilliam got it from, it doesn’t say, but the last legal sale of the gun was in 2002.  Could have been stolen and ended up on the black market.  Either way, the guy wasn’t allowed to own a gun at all, so it can be considered a black market transaction.

So does Bryan Miller and the Brady Campaign want to apologize for maligning honest gun owners over this yet?

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. IHOP Killer’s AK Chinese Made
  2. Belgian Mass Shooter
  3. Registration Gone Wrong

You Couldn’t Ask for a Better Spokesman

Jesus, maybe we need to sign on more used car salesmen to promote the Second Amendment.  This guy does a great job against questions that would throw most people off balance:

It makes sense if you think about it. Car salesman make their living putting people a little off balance in an attempt to get more money for the car. Anyone who’s ever negotiated a price with a sharp salesman will attest to that. I wouldn’t presume to debate anyone who makes a living haggling.

UPDATE: On the other hand, see if you can spot the errors in this AP article on the same topic.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Mike Nutter Helping Guns Sales
  2. Home Depot Supplying NYC Criminals With Illegal Weapons?
  3. Gura v. Henigan

Testimony Before the Committee

Here’s some short video clips of the pro-gun testimony from yesterday.   First we have the statements from Sandy Froman and Dave Kopel.  If you had told me a few years ago Dave Kopel would be testifying on behalf of Nunchaku rights before a Senate Committee, I wouldn’t have believed you.  But there it is.  Bruce Lee would be proud.

Next is Sandy Froman responding to some questioning by Jeff Sessions.  And then questions from Jon Kyl.

On another panel, we have the statement of Steve Halbrook, then some questions from Jeff Sessions.

I was very glad to see all three of them up there giving testimony on our behalf.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Kopel’s Testimony on Kagan
  2. We Appreciate the Help of All the Daves
  3. More on Sotomayor and Second Amendment

National Reciprocity Up Early Next Week

The Defense Appropriations Bill for 2010 is coming up next week in the Senate.  This might be the opportunity to attach S.845, which provides for universal reciprocity for concealed carry licenses.  It’ll be a floor amendment, which is good, because the Senate Appropriations Committee makeup doesn’t look like it favors us too well.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Castle Doctrine Dead
  2. How Not to Win
  3. LTC Reciprocity With Maryland?

Passing the Buck

It’s amazing that the debate is still thick in Tennessee over a provision that essentially just makes it more like most other states in terms of being able to carry a firearms into a restaurant.  But why the hysterics from businesses about people being able to carry guns into their establishments when all they have to do is post in order to stop it?  Why the hysterics about needing an “opt-in” type system rather than an “opt-out” type system.

Because the restaurants are quite happy to pass that buck to the state.  What restaurants are worried about is signaling.  By putting up a sign saying guns are prohibited, you’re sending a signal to potential customers that this is the kind of establishment that has to prohibit people from carrying firearms.  It can imply that perhaps there have been incidents in the past which could have prompted the sign.  Restaurants have a fairly powerful signaling incentive not to post a sign prohibiting firearms.  That’s why they are moaning so loudly for an opt-in system, since it puts the signaling burden on the parties that wish to allow firearms.

Ironically, I think the best course forward for the restaurants once they lose the legislative issue, would probably be to do nothing, since the more press attention this gets, the more you’re signaling to customers that restaurants are the types of places people might want to carry a gun.  You’re also signaling to those afraid of guns that restaurants are now places people can have guns.  Even though that might be true just about anywhere else you go, most people don’t understand the law, or understand the issue.

But the restaurant associations are actually pretty powerful, since most every representative will have a number of restaurateurs in his or her district, and they are interacting with their constituents on a regular basis.  The power of the restaurant associations are the reason many of these restrictions exist at all.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. More on Permitless Carry
  2. Tough Battle on Restaurant Carry in Virginia
  3. Yes, I’d Like to Order the PSH Platter for One